wren ng thornton wrote:
> On 10/16/10 11:22 AM, Ben Franksen wrote:
>> Much better. Though I *do* think mentioning the main implementations and
>> their qualities is a good thing to o, right after this:
>>>> "[...]The most
>> important Haskell implementation, ghc [like to ghc page], has served as a
>> test bed for practical application of cutting egde research into the
>> language as well as its compilation to efficiently executable code."
>> Objection to calling GHC the most "important". The most mature, most
> fully featured, most common, or even the standard implementation,, sure.
> But saying GHC is more important than the rest implies that (among
> others) the work on JHC and UHC is "unimportant". To the contrary, I
> think JHC and UHC are, perhaps, more important than GHC precisely
> because they are treading new waters that the standard implementation
> cannot afford to explore.
Right on all accounts. Can one say "most mature and full-featured" ?
Cheers
Ben